U.N.O. is an international organisation of 185 member countries of
the world.
The United Nations Organisation came into being in 1945 after a
horrible war and it represents the strong desire of humanity for peace. The
United Nations charter was signed in San Francisco on 26 June, 1945. The
UN is headquartered in New York city, with offices and headquarters of
various agencies located around the world. The league of Nations had not
been as broadly based. Some great nations kept out of it. The U.N.O,
from the very beginning was composed of almost all the nations of the
world. Most of those which could not join at first have now become its
members.
The major objectives of the U.N.O. are the maintenance of peace,
the growth of cooperative efforts among nations and the solution of
disputes by peaceful means. Members are obliged to promote respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms. The U.N.O. is based on the
sovereign equality of all its members, the number of which has now risen
to nearly 184. Switzerland and the two Vietnams are still not members.
Indonesia resigned her membership.
Six main organs make up the U.N.O. These are the General
Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the
Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the
Secretariat. In addition to these, there are seventeen specialised agencies
working in various fields. The most important of them are the ILO, the
FAO, the UNESCO, and the WHO. the governments of their peoples. It expresses the determination of the
The U.N.O has tried its best to live up to the noble ideas contained
members to save coming generations from the scourge of war. I
recognises that “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds
of men that defences of peace must be constructed.” It further says tha
mutual ignorance and denial of democratic rights have been the cause of
war in the past. It also warns that peace based merely
on economic and
political foundations will not be lasting. Finally it emphasizes the need of a
greater spread of culture and education for the good of humanity.
This is the basic approach of the U.N.O. to achieve its aims of
international peace and the common welfare of the mankind. Let us
examine how far it has succeeded.
The achievements of the U.N.O., so far have not been small. It can
vital fields as disarmament and developing the peaceful uses of atomic
look back on a proud record and forward to the hope of progress, in such
energy.
The U.N.O has tried to prevent the outbreak of a world war on
many different occasions. It stopped a war between Egypt and Britain,
France and Israel over the question of Suez canal, before this had checked
the Korean war from turning into a world war. But for the intervention of
the U.N.O in the Congo, that country would have become a major area of
the cold war. The U.N.O also contributed to a solution of a long-standing
dispute between Holland and Indonesia regarding West New Guinea, a
major trouble spot in S.E. Asia. The U. N.. played a significant role in
earlier stages of the Indo-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. The U.N.O took
timely action by calling a halt to armed hostilities between Israel and U.
A. R.. and other Arab countries in 1967 and again in 1973.
U. N. O. ‘s role: “Ours is a work of reconciliation and realistic
Hammerskjold, the Secretary-General of the U. N. O. defines the
construction. This work must be based on respect for the laws by which
human civilisation has been built. The existence of the U. N. O. depends
on the small powers. The big powers only need the U. N. O. as a rubber
stamp to authenticate their decisions. When they are in the
interest in the U. N. O. are the small powers and this is the only way
prefer to ignore the U. N. O. completely. So the people who have the real
which international participation can be fulfilled.” There are many people who are not satisfied with the working of the
U. N. O.. They point out that it is dominated by the American bloc, so it
impartially as it should have been. Red China was given
fails to work as
its due place after 25 years. The U. N. O. could not resolve the Kashmir
Americans savagely bombarded that country. It could not prevent genocide
issue. It could do nothing to solve the problem of Vietnam. The
in Bangladesh.
It has not been fairly successful in promoting peace but its great
achievements have been in the field of social and economic advancement
of developing nations.
In spite of these achievements the U. N. O. has not gone far in the
fulfillment of its chief aim, the establishment of lasting peace. The Big
Powers have made the U. N. an instrument of their policies. Some of its
members have begun to think of it as an organisation through which war
can be waged. The armament race is out of its control. And it has not got
the strength to check an aggressor. The presence of the veto in the
Security Council makes it helpless if one of the Big Powers chooses to
attack another.
But, in spite of all its weaknesses and failures, the world would be a
much worse place without this organisation. It serves a vital function. In a
cold war-ridden world it provides a useful platform where agreements are
sometimes reached. If the U. N. did not exist all the countries will come
together to build up something like it again.
There is nothing basically wrong with the United Nations. No
international organisation can be fully successful if nations do not learn to
cooperate and do not practise tolerance to each other. They should also be
prepared to sacrifice some of their independence of action for the common
good of the world. Perhaps the human race is not yet so politically mature
as to realize all this.
But the logic of the nuclear age is obvious. The tremendous
advances made in science have brought the nations closer together. On the
other hand, science has given them the means to destroy the entire proud
structure of modern civilization. The choice is now clear. Either we have
an international organisation to establish friendly relationships between
nations or we run the risk of complete destruction. If the world is not so
foolish as to choose the latter course we cannot do without the U, N. For all its drawbacks, it has in it the seeds of hope and peace. The alternative
Pakistan has reiterated its strong opposition to any increase in the
permanent membership of the Security Council, since it would serve the
n overwhelming majority of the
interests of only a few countries, and would be to the detriment of small
and medium sized countries constituting an
membership of the United Nations.
Ahmad Kamal, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the United
Nations, while speaking at the General Assembly
on the question of
equitable representation on increase in the membership of the Security
Council, on 1st November 1996, Pakistan, he said remained strongly
opposed to the centers of privilege with the United Nations system. Such
privileged centers were anachronistic, antidemocratic, and contrary to the
spirit of sovereign equality as enshrined in the UN charter. An increase in
permanent membership of the Security Council would not only strengthen
the club of the aristocratic elite, but would also proportionately reduce the
chances of election of non-members to various organs of the United
Nations.
Pakistan and many other countries advocated an increase in the
category of non-permanent membership in order to proportionately reflect
the increase that had taken place in the general membership of the United
Nations.
Security Council was really to be reformed, then the fundamental
assumptions on which this institution was established in 1945 should be re-
examined to see if there were still valid after 50 years and whether they
would continue to be valid for next 50 years.
The situation in 1945 was after all a totally extraordinary but static
one. The victors of world war II simply allocated to themselves permanent
seats on the Security Council. In the process, they created a non-
democratic center of privilege, and invented the anachronistic veto. That
mistake should not be repeated. Years of debates on this question had not
produced any consensus, nor was one likely in any foreseeable future on
an expansion in the permanent membership of the Security Council.
The reality was that the existing permanent members were not
willing to accept restrictions on their power of veto, let alone to renounce many important members of the Security Council and the General
Assembly were not even willing to allow forward movement on the
working methods of the Security Council, as they wanted to hold any
reform of the working methods hostage to a quick decision on expansion,
The reality was that, except for a few countries, most of the
members of the General Assembly would be happy to see an expansion of
the non-permanent category alone in the Security Council.
Six countries which had announced their candidatures for the
permanent membership of the council, two of them were economic
powers, while the others were being perceived as no more than floor-
crossers from the NAM position on centers of privilege. These aspirants
of the permanent seats in the Security Council had traditionally espoused
the original NAM position, but had now changed their position.
It would be better if the working group discussing this important
matter, concentrated only on the expansion of the non permanent
membership, and on reforming the working methods of the Security
Council. This would respond to the wishes of the vast majority of member
states.
An enhanced cooperation between the Security Council and the
General Assembly, consultation between the Security Council members
and a country which might the affected by its decisions, institutionalisation
of consultations between the president of the Security Council with
respective chairmen of the regional groups an important issues, regular
and transparent briefing on informal consultation, institutionalization of a
system of consultations during the decision making process on the
establishment, the conduct and termination of peace keeping operations, a
greater involvement of the general membership in the decision making
process of the council, provisions for the prompt convening of the formal
meetings of the Security Council at the request of a member state and a
review of the veto powers of the permanent members.
Mercifully, the crisis that had gripped the United Nations since last
inonth is over. The world body has managed to agree on a new secretary
general. He is Kofi Aman from Ghana who was sworn in on 17th
December 1996 of course, the way the succession issue was mismanaged
in the Security Council has left a bad taste in the mouth. The United States
-blatant resort to the veto to deny Mr. Boutros-Boutras Ghali a second term
smacked of big power arrangence. It was a case of one superpower against the whole world community. But that is how it was in view of the UN
charter requirement of unanimity of vote of the permanent members in the
election of the secretary general.
Mr. Annan, however, has been allowed to start on a sound footing.
He is from sub-Soharan Africa and has the total backing of the Africans,
who were naturally resentful of the American opposition to Mr. Ghali. He
also managed to get the French to drop its threat of a veto to any candidate
not from francophone Africa. To reassure, France, Mr. Annan wisely
delivered part of his acceptance speech in French. He has also spoken
about marketing for a consensus which is essential if the world body is to
work effectively and produce results.
The election episode has, however, left many feeling skeptical about
the future of the United Nations. In the cold war ear, the world body faced
the problem of being reduced to paralysis when the two superpowers
disagreed or were locked in confrontation. A clever secretary general
could use his skill to steer the organization between the two giants and
maintain a delicate balance. That situation has since changed dramatically.
As a result, the chief executive of the UN finds it difficult to use one
power as a counterweight to the other. The danger is that he might be
either required to submit to the authority of the only surviving superpower
or, in case of a confrontation, lose his job. This is precisely what has
happened with Mr. Ghali. Initially be was regarded as American’s man.
When he started asserting his independence, Washington saw to it that he
was sent home.
Mr. Annan’s task
consensus and healing. But the US domination of the UN. Mr. Annan has
s not going to be easy either. He has spoken of
premised to play an independent role. The world will watch with interest.
One thing is certain. If the UN is to survived into the twenty first century,
a lot will depend on the performance of the new secretary general and the
elbow room be manages to get for the purpose.
said in an article published in daily Dawn on 28th December 96 issue, that
only hope”, Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto former prime minister of Pakistan
While expressing her views, under the title “A stronger UN is our
“when the Berlin Wall fell and American President George Bush heralded
a “new world order”, the further of United Nations seemed bright.
prevail in international affairs and the United Nations would be
world in which the strong would protect the weak, the rule of law would implemented seemed within reach. For a short while, the world did make
astonishing progress in dealing with such intractable regional conflicts as
Cambodia, EL Salvador. Nicaragua, Angola, Nambibia and South Africa.
r optimism proud to be short lived, as events in places like Somalia
and Bosnia took the luster off the New World order.
But our
The real problem with the United Nations today is the absence of a
coherent policy on peace keeping. Vague mandates and insufficient
resources have exposed the organization to criticism that has
overshadowed the United Nations commendable work in other areas.
What we need is the fundamental understanding of the nature of the
days conflicts. The large clashes between superpowers have been replaced
by small but numerous unrelated disturbances all over the world.
Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, Somalia and Bosnia are just a few.
In 1995 alone, the world witnessed a record 18 peacekeeping
missions involving over 78,000 troops in both external and internal
conflicts. And a majority of these situations were all the more difficult
because of the lack of commitment from the major powers.
Pakistan through its involvement in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia,
has learned a great deal about how to handle peace keeping operations. If I
could put my finger on the most essential part of a successful mission, it
would be the presence of a standby force at the disposal of the local
commander, which could react to developing problems with decisiveness.
But conflict between armed forces is not the only problem that the
countries of the world must overcome. An organisation like the United
Nations is essential to control such budding crises as nuclear proliferation,
narcotics trafficking, killer diseases and terrorism. All those problems
don’t recognise the sanctity of international borders – they must be dealt
with in cooperation.
We must also learn to control the spread of ethnic violence, as a
disturbance in one country automatically affects the whole region in the
form of refugees. The recent situation in Zaire is but an example of this
trend. Currently, there 27 million refugees in the if the United Nations
were not there to look after the victims of genocide and racial warfare.
who would?
The challengers we face are not insurmountable. When we reformed United Nations. Canadian Foreign Minister Lester B. Pearson
put it best when he said, “Are we to go from crisis to crisis improvising in
haste? Or can we now pool our experience and our resource, so thing in
next time we – the governments and peoples the United Nations represents
will be ready and prepared to act.”
I strongly believe in the dream of a cooperative brotherhood of
nations, and I draw inspiration from the guiding principles of Pakistan’s
founding father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He said, “Pakistan will never be
found lacking in extending its material support to the oppressed and
suppressed people of the world and in upholding the principles of the UN
charter”.
Pakistan has the unique distinction of contribution forces to all the
peacemaking operations from Congo in 1960 to the on going involvement
in Bosnia. The road has not always been easy, as we paid a heavy price
when our troops were ambushed and killed in Somalia.
Pakistanis were not the only ones to shed blood in Somalia, however
– Americans lost their lives, as well. And although our losses may be
discouraging, we must not think these sacrifices in the name of world
peace would be in vain.
The United States vetoed the re-election bid of Boutros Ghali on the
grounds that the United Nations Chief did not bring reforms. But there
was not mention of the fact that the United States owed and still owes huge
amount of dues to the world body.
1996 year was the year when the United Nations’ vulnerability
became more apparent than ever before. And this did not portend well for
mankind. The fragile UN found itself unable to cope with the post
pattern of inter-state equations. Thus the blood letting in central Africa.
call-war
Afghanistan and Kashmir continued unabated, the peace process in the
Middle East survived only in the name as the hot-heads on either side took
recourse to extremism and there was a revival of the guerrilla movements
in South America. The UN, which had on previous occasions, intervened
in domestic conflicts too to enforce peace, found itself paralysed. The
IN fact, the election of the Secretary General which found the US arrayed
much mooted talk of reforming the world body yielded notangible results.
against the whole world was indicative of ‘how continuous the reform process can be. In that year (1996) United Nations was able to announce
bans on Chemical weapons, land mines and nuclear testing.
Japan, which hopes to became a permanent member of the UN
Security Council took a seat on 1st January 1997 as a non-permanent
member and retorting president committed to promoting world peace and
security, Japan is the second largest contributor to the UN budget after the
United States. Like Germany, it is seeking to close the book on World
War II and join the council as a permanent member. Besides Japan, four
other countries were elected by the General Assembly on October 21,
1996 to sit on the Security Council for two years as non-permanent
members Costa Rica, Kenya, Portugal and Sweden. While Japan
contributes 15.5 percent of the UN budget – around 400 million dollars a
year.
The Security Council is the UN’s highest decision making body. It
consists of 15 members, five of which Britain, China, France, Russia
and the United States – are permanent and have veto power.